Virginia Stephenson of Soulforce Albuquerque provides a first-hand account of her group’s encounter with Courage, a Catholic organization that promotes chastity among same-sex-attracted individuals.
Courage does not call itself "ex-gay." But:
- Courage favors NARTH reinterpretations of current science;
- Courage misdefines "gay" as a “socio-political position,” encouraging people not to identify as same-sex-attracted, instead advising these people to move "beyond" homosexual attractions;
- Courage asserts that homosexual and Christian identities are separate and distinct, with homosexuality representing incompleteness.
- Courage’s founder blames the Catholic sexual abuse scandal on gay priests generally, while expressing measured tolerance for priests who abused teen-agers in the distant past.
- Courage asks that the antigay Catholic pastoral letter "Always Our Children" be made more strident in its condemnation of the "homosexual lifestyle."
With all that in mind, here is Soulforce Albuquerque’s account of its challenge to Courage:
Fr. John Harvey, the founder of Courage, the Catholic group, led a seminar July 16-18 at the St. Clement Church in Los Lunas, N.M. Flyers and advertisements appeared in the Albuquerque papers for the seminar. Three Soulforce volunteers attended the meeting. There were about 100 people in attendance and Fr. Harvey began the meeting by speaking for about 40 minutes on the Catholic Church’s stand on homosexuality.
About 15 minutes into the talk, after calling homosexuality a "vile sin," and sharing a comment from a Mother who said that "the parts don’t fit," the three of us stood in silent protest. We were sitting 5 rows from the front of the Church, and our standing up seemed to throw him a little, he looked like he was not sure what to do. So, he decided to do nothing and we stood silently for the next 20 minutes or so while he finished his speech. At the end of the talk he said he would take questions for 15 minutes, so the lifelong Catholic (Peter) in our group raised his hand and told of his 18-year gay relationship which he not only considered a blessing from God, but also believed the spiritualness of his union with his partner was a blessing to God as well. He then said to Fr. Harvey, "What is it you would say to me?"
Fr. Harvey answered him with the Catholic Church’s official moral stance, to which Peter replied that the Church’s stand was "spiritual violence" against him.
In the question-and-answer period another gay person (not with Soulforce) stood and spoke eloquently also on the untruth spoken by the Church. We remained standing for the question and answer session as well. At the end of the meeting we all talked with people who came up to us, some to support and some to criticize.
As a result of our silent vigil, we met members of Milagro and Dignity, two pro-GLBT Catholic organizations, who were very supportive, and future allies of Soulforce in our area.
All in all it was extremely successful, as we three certainly felt it was our place to be there, and we felt our protest caused some people to re-consider the truth of the Church’s stance. All of us felt humbled and excited by the experience.
If an ex-gay group or one of those vigilante Catholic groups like “Roman Cathholic Faithful” decided to disrupt a Catholic gay ministry or organization, Soulforce people and their friends would be screaming “hate crime” and “bigot” left and justly so. Soulforce’s actions deserve the same comdenmation. Actions like this do nothing other than further inflame an otherwise polarized situation. Evidently, Soulforce has never considered the possibility that they are inflicting just as much “spiritual violence” on the attendees of the Courage meetings as they claim that Courage and the Catholic Church inflict on them. Just like the overzealous antigay protestors who demonstrate at gay events, I guess they condescendingly view themselves as perfomring an act of love for the people against whom they are protesting.
Pardon me, but (although I don’t want to appear as endorsing the tactic in a general sense)it doesn’t seem that this action by Soulforce was that disruptive. They didn’t shout anyone down or harass. I think they just posed a silent protest during the talk, gently said their piece in the Q&A, and answered questions / took criticism. I know there have been some disruptive GLBT protests by other groups before, but I find it hard to see any “spiritual violence” inflicted on the Courage meeting by Soulforce here.
I would consider standing during a lecture or a talk as a sign of protest *is* disruptive, even if there is no shouting or punch-throwing. This is particularly so when the standing took place near the front of speaker rather than discreetly in the back. Again, if anti-gay protestors did this sort of thing at a gay conference, people would rightly consider that to be disruptive. Soulforce’s actions are not defensible. There are more constructive ways to express one’s disagreements.
Two points.
(i) Regardless of whether “Courage” is “ex-gay,” it is clearly anti-equal rights for gay people. It is an adjunct of the RCC. ‘Nough said.
(ii) As far as I’m concerned, Michael Bronski succinctly described Soulfarce (misspelling intentional) a few years ago in The Mel and Jerry Show: Deliver us from spotlight-loving ministers https://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/1in10/99/11/bronski.html If White thinks he’s doing gay people any favors by annoying conservative christians–which is all he’s doing, annoying them–he isn’t. He might think he’s atoning for his work for Falwell, but he isn’t. Just move on with your life, Mel. You did enough damage working for Falwell.
For the record, Courage has members who seek to diminish the same sex attraction they experience through therapy. They do this on their own and that is not Courage’s focus. The majority of Courage members are not involved in any sort of effort
Courage is about discipleship to Jesus Christ in accord with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Chastity is in that context. The goals of Courage are explicitly tied to discipleship. I appreciate that there are people in the world who with live same sex attraction, self-identify as gay and would not seek to live chastely – that’s their business and their life is between them and the Holy Spirit. They have no business telling other people how they have to live. Nobody came to me and held a gun to my head to seek Christ and live chastely. The Church offered her teachings which I believe come from Jesus Christ and I responded freely as I chose.
Contratulations to the couple who have been together 18 years. If you had asked me that question I would have offered congratulations then as now. I also am part of an 18 year old friendship – but which has not been sexually active for ten years. What would have happened if one of you had gone to the other and said “I love you, but could we please stop having sex?” Would you stll be friends?
The question is significant because the Church does NOT view all aspects of a same sex friendship as sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful, but if a friendship doesn’t have that activity there is no sin. That leaves a friendship with all the love, loyalty, honesty, accountability, caring and tenderness that a strong friendship demands – more so, in our case at least, because it is abundantly clear to both of us that we are not friends for the sex or the utility of each other’s bodies but because we love each other for who we are not what we can offer one another.
Soulforce, many folks in Courage, in fact a majority in several Courage groups whose members I know, have done the whole actively gay thing, and even gotten the tee-shirts. It hasn’t worked in our lives and we have found something a whole lot better. Sorry if that irritates you, but there it is and it is still, for now at least, a free country.
David,
“They have no business telling other people how they have to live.”
Hmmmm, who is doing that? And how, precisely.
I don’t see ex-gays’ choice of chastity irritating gay people of faith (Soulforce). What irritated Soulforce was John Harvey’s very unflattering characterizations of them.
The Roman Catholic Church does not view same-sex-attraction as sinful, but it does view the attraction as disordered and oriented toward an intrinsic evil, correct? And the church also affirms antigay discrimination on various counts.
Rather than simply speaking about one’s own disorders, Harvey dictated that it is other people of faith who suffer from vile disorders. That seems to have upset Soulforce.
My assessment of Soulforce is mixed. To their credit, they are not armchair activists — they don’t just sit around and talk about peace and justice, they act. However, their tactics are periodically considered rude by critics. On the other hand, the public protest only happens after the individual being protested has refused to dialogue regarding their alleged mischaracterization of gay people of faith.
“I appreciate that there are people in the world who with live same sex attraction, self-identify as gay and would not seek to live chastely – that’s their business and their life is between them and the Holy Spirit. They have no business telling other people how they have to live.”
That’s great for you David, and I appreciate that, but unfortunately, that is NOT what the Catholic Church practices. The Vatican has directed all bishops to fight against any and all gay rights legislation, including such simple things as anti-discrimination laws (apparently it’s just fine for a Catholic to be forced to rent to Jews, but not gays). The Catholic Church has declared any government that provides gay rights is “mentally ill” and in one pastoral letter actually stated that gay people should expect violence if we “loudly agitate” for our rights. The Catholic Church has proven it is NOT willing to “live and let live” with the gay community, and has ramped up its attacks on us when the child sex abuse crisis appeared – a crisis created by the allegedly straight bishops who aided and abetted the very criminals they should have stopped. This may not be Courage’s viewpoint, but it is clearly the Church leadership’s.
CPT_Doom | August 26, 2004 12:07 PM
>That’s great for you David, and I appreciate that, but unfortunately, that is NOT what the Catholic Church practices. The Vatican has directed all bishops to fight against any and all gay rights legislation, including such simple things as anti-discrimination laws (apparently it’s just fine for a Catholic to be forced to rent to Jews, but not gays).
Sorry, it’s even worse than that. As far as the catholic church is concerned, they have no problem with a gay person being required to rent to a catholic, but it is forbidden for a catholic to be required to rent to a gay person.
Special rights for christians.
for one i agree with most how dare any one tell us how we should or shouldnt live thats like telling no offence a black person there goin to hell cause there not white or saying if your not italian then your goin to hell as a gay person i have gone through ex gay catholics, neo nazis, skin heads, jehovahs witnesses, anti-gay commies i think personally that catholics are ticked off because god loves us for the things they hate us for and there just mad becuase us gays and lesbians have found a lupe hole around getting stds and getting pregnant so this i say screw the antigay catholics i am a fully devoted wiccan and i still believe the “christian” god loves me even though im gay
David,
I’m happy that you’ve found what works for you. It sounds like you’ve been able to construct a life in which you are able to love and care for a man without the conflict between sexual acts and your religous beliefs.
My only concern is that you refer to your relationship as a “friendship”. Many heterosexual couples have marriages that are without sex for various reasons. Yet they do not at that point devolve to friendships.
My concern is that you may have downplayed not only the physical side of your relationship but also the emotional side.
I am hoping that this was just an unfortunate word selection.
However, if what you have done is take a relationship based on love and dimmed it down into a friendship, while I respect your choices, I pity the self-loathing view that drove you to do so.
Just to point out, I, for one, believe it a bit idiotic for people who are supposed to be celibate to chastize us for having sex with people with whom we want to have sex.
They should be encouraged to mind their own knitting.
David,In answer to your question… if either one of us could not have sex, the other would understand. That is our commitment to each other.But I wonder what you mean by sex? It would take some serious accident or serious disease for us to stop any and all forms of sex. Personally I would miss most the snuggling up to him in the same bed, wrapping our arms around each other and quitely talking about our day and our worries.This is a body I have held for 14 years. It has changed. Yet every part, every curve, every hair is more comfort and more pleasure today that it ever has been. The mere sense of his hand sliding across me in our half sleep is a gentle and calm peace. I delight in the sound of his voice. We argue. We hurt each other with angry or frustrated words. But, it only hurts because of our love. And that love allows each to forgive and accept each other. I am incomplete without him.I am pleased if you are happy with the way you live. But, for us, such a life would be a cold and blistering torture.